“My point is that the Church doctrine claims that Mary never sinned. It has nothing to do with formatting. Your statement is simply not what the Catholic Church teaches, period.”
Is it that you won’t get it, or that you can’t get it?
The citation you offered to support your position doesn’t say what you alleged it to say. Your point is not supported.
Either come up with some valid support, or accept that you are mistaken.
“The citation you offered to support your position doesn’t say what you alleged it to say. Your point is not supported.”
Of course it does! Are you saying that the Latin Church in its catechism, posted on the Vatican website, is taking a little gratuitous detour into Eastern Patrology for the edification of the Western Faithful but in no way is it teaching doctrine at sec. 498?
I could see you arguing that the Immaculate Conception as set forth there doesn’t mean what it says, if it did then Panagia isn’t a human being and Christ isn’t True Man, but to claim that the Latin Church doesn’t teach that she was sinless all her life is an innovation smacking of protestantism.
You ought to ask yourself that. I repat your quote:
Without the double negative, your statements affirms that "Catholic doctrine claims that Mary may have sinned, no matter how slighty."
That is not what the Catholic Church teaches. If that is what you believe, then you need more catechisis; if it is not, then perhaps a review of double negatives might help.